Tuesday, 19 December 2023

that movie rant...

 

'Overact mes Amis! Like you have never over-acted beforrrrre!'

Ok, so I didn’t want to do this; I honestly tried not to do this, but it’s embarrassing ffs!

Am I talking about rumours of a new edition of Black Powder? Nope!  

Am I alluding to the latest news that Warhammer is to hit the big screen, promoted by your favourite multinational? Nope!

Phew...

I’m talking about that Napoleon movie.

I really wanted to like it; I really tried to like it.

The highlights for me were as follows:

  • It looked really nice – there is a lovely 3 second scene of Cuirassiers charging squares as they form at Waterloo. The re-enactors did a brilliant job, as far as I could see
  • ·         Vanessa Kirby was beautiful as ever

·         …then I ran out of ideas.

'So, I may be stunning dahling...but unless I get this f**king Napoleon neck tattoo taken off, my career is f**ked.'

Ok – there were a few things which concerned me, on a more minor level at first, but as a whole they allowed the fast moving train to not only leave the potentially well constructed rails, but ultimately vanish into a hole in the ground, leading directly to hell… 

  • ·         Toulon – I tried to convince myself that it looked good even though Napoleon in his 20s looked like an old man…I mean could they not have used a younger actor, at least for this part
  • ·         The revolutionary scenes ‘looked’ superb, but for all of the concentration on getting dates correct, everything else seems rushed or bluffed
  • ·         Austerlitz – surely CGI, even thought people hate it, could have been used to give an impression of the wider massive battle?
  • ·         Austerlitz (again) – I wanted to hear him say to a messenger “take these orders to General ‘X’ on the right flank – ensure that he does not move until ‘X’pm…now GO!”.  Never, in my wildest dreams, did I expect Napoleon in 1805 to say “SEND IN THE INFANTRY!”. You can suspend all the disbelief you want, but this is bullshit
  • ·         Napoleon acting like a dying fish when he wants a shag is weird enough, without using it to make the film even more ridiculous. I’m sure Vanessa wasn’t actually acting in response to some of these antics, she was just wondering when she got paid
  • ·         Bits of Russia looked nice, but he led a charge at Borodino (on a budget). Now I get that Napoleon once (or twice) surged forward and added to morale…buuut he makes contact with Russian lines etc. By this stage I was beginning to wonder just how bad Waterloo would be
  • ·         …and the Waterloo ‘scene’. To summarise…’over the top boys’; charging Wellington’s lines. Little tents, and holes through hats…I had actually starting laughing at the comedic value by this stage
'Charge! ...dudes...'

Now, were I to jump to major issues, we could have a field day, but let’s talk up conspiracy theory first…

Do I believe that viruses escape labs via accident or by design? I’ve worked in industry long enough to know that people can be stupid, and accidents happen; so accident, not design.

So thereby, if I am asked whether the Napoleon movie is some sort of deliberate attempt to dumb down history and make people more pliable to stupid ideas? …nope, because producers aren’t that smart – they just want your money – like any good corporation; but was it just a shit movie because too many cooks were spoiling the broth, and control/management was abrogated because no one gave a shit, or lower ranks were terrified? Absolutely yes.

Clickbait...clickbait...clickbaaaait...

…and for the director to answer critics with a cry of ‘were you there?’ when historians criticise, just succinctly proves, that he is less than engaged. Believe me; I know that history can be bunk; I am aware that much of what we consider sacrosanct in terms of primary sources, can actually be disproven from a modern standpoint - ignoring the fact that history has been manipulated when it suits, but ffs... wise up! I mean I get that the older generation loves to stick two fingers up at the world…but screwing with a historical figure’s story? Naaah!

I watched this Waterloo movie twice after I’d seen Napoleon. I always thought it was a great film. Now? It’s a stunning classic.

Do yourself a favour...




28 comments:

  1. I shall be saving my money and buying a box of Perry French infantry instead :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a wonderful idea Norm. I would say money well spent.
      To be fair, I ended up arriving early the night of the film, having to buy a 9 quid dinner in a certain overpriced US restaurant (which shall remain nameless but allegedly '5 blokes' run it), got stung 17 quid for the IMAX ticket, then, did the good turn of having the cinema pay the car park (it's such a nice thing they do) before being charged an extra 1.60 for the privilege of having parked an extra 15 mins...so over 3 hours later, having cost myself the price of 28no Napoleonic Lamming miniatures, I had lost some life I will never get back. Apart from all that, I'm not bitter at all.

      Delete
  2. I am so pleased it wasn't just me. I saw this mess the day after release and I was really looking forward to the film. Alright I didn't expect a history of the great man but given Ridley Scotts eye for cinema I was expecting a beautifully made film. It wasn't. There was no characterisation, there was basically liitle in the way of explanation as to how Napoleon came to power. Instead we got Phoenix reprising Commodus but without any context. Ive read other reviews stating they loved the film, but I struggle to understand what they were comparing it to, perhaps a Marvel film? Personally I think Scott is living on past glories. I did like Josephene and any man would have been inflamed by her, even though in reality she had seen a lot of action. The only bits I liked were those with Miles Jupp as King?? wtf, Francis and when Napoleon slipped off the seat at the very end. What a complete and utter pile of tripe, and I got a ticket from my local council to add insult to injury. Check out my review on my blog, at Independent wargames group.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just read your post on the movie - laughed heartily - especially at the Captain Pugwash analogy. Absolutely sir; if this movie had been a set of Wargames rules - it would have been called 'Black Powder'. I have held back for weeks, not wishing to pour fuel on the fire, and if there are good reviews out there, I am amazed...and good point on that old Austerlitz movie with Jack Palance on your blog - i must pick that up again... HA :)
      Again, I wonder was this just a comedy of errors at senior levels, with inept money grabbing producers, or is Ridley just having a bit of a laugh. Either way, I have debated as to whether to be annoyed at the cynicism of it all, or simply just laugh at the absurdity.

      I'll probably laugh.

      Delete
    2. I think Ridley Scott has the same issue as Biden. He doesnt know when to retire. Im really not certain why he employed a historical advisor because its obvious he ignored their advice. What a waste of an oppourtunity. I thought Napoleon in Love was far better and that was a very low budget television series with moveable scenary BUT No trenches or 'officers screaming Over the Top Lads'

      Delete
    3. I think over on 'Mark's Game Room', they made the point that as genius gets older - the ten things they used to be good at...become less and less, until reduced to the singular core value. He can still do nice looking camera angles and shots...ummm...yeah.
      The bit I really don't get though, is that the movie going indigenous public, is older, mostly wiser, and a little better read (for the most part). Did he think he was going to get away with this tripe?

      Delete
  3. You won’t find many wargamers with a passing knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars disagreeing with your assessment. Ironically, I write this in a pub called the Wellington near Waterloo station. No trenches visible on the Waterloo mural in the bar!
    Chris/Nundanket

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did have a little voice in my head screaming 'this is gonna be crap' before i went in, but I turned it off LOL

      Delete
  4. FWIW, I was laughing hysterically at the scene when he "died" slumping in his chair on St Helena. Waterloo was equally funny and it wasn't supposed to be funny.

    I enjoyed the movie through Toulon. After Toulon I stayed just because I paid for the ticket, popcorn, and soda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh and of course by Waterloo, I mean the Waterloo scene in the movie, not the incomparable Christopher Plummer/Rod Steiger epic.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Steve. I know right? I have held back for weeks LOL. Like you, I was enjoying myself up until Toulon, suspending my disbelief, then someone turned the steering wheel hard right, and it was supposed to be a left turn... I loved how the dates were spot on, but they were only there to make you think that they knew what they were doing

      I echo other points and blogs - it was so damned shallow to be worth absolutely nothing - and worse, it had all the plot holes and puerile crap of a bad sci fi movie. I guess no one had the balls to say 'Ridley, umm mate? uhhh? just one thing?'

      Delete
  5. I didn't completely hate it, there were some good bits and I loved the uniforms, but it just wasn't a very good film and the Pythonesque battle scenes didn't help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Monty Python and the Short Emperor'...considers...you know that might work

      Delete
    2. I am with Martin - it was OK but I would not bother watching it again, I don't think.
      Despite what most wargamer reviewers think though, its made plenty of money, got some good reviews from reputable sources (depending on how you classify "reputable" of course) and the reality is, most people would probably prefer this film to the much more historically accurate "Waterloo" or "Gettysburg" etc

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately sir, (engages grumpy old man mode) that reality speaks volumes as to what we have become in the west. One liner scripts that speak to a less than engaged audience, with a glitzy 'look' that gives them a dopamine hit to their limited attention span. Yep, you may be right.
      (it also explains the 'Black Powder' ruleset quite admirably ;) )

      I only wish Monty Python had actually done a version of Napoleon in the 70s now; that would have been epic.

      Delete
  6. Just think there is a 4hr 30min cut to look forward to :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to see them try it ...

      Delete
    2. Believe its a planned release on Apple TV in 2024

      Delete
    3. Interesting - will they be taking out his impression of a sex starved goldfish, and his reference to English 'boats' I wonder. Classic lines I know...

      Delete
  7. My Napoleonic Austrians are going on eBay in January so I hope this won’t damage sales. Meanwhile, I recommend Adventures of a Plumber’s Mate. If nothing else it makes your Amazon Prime suggestions interesting…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know? 'Adventures of a Short Emperor' might actually have worked for this movie, though it would have had to be done in a 1970s porn style, in order to fully work...

      Delete
    2. If you can find a role for Biggins, I’m in. Safari?

      Delete
    3. Biggins as Napoleon, with Linda Lusardi as Josephine, and Benny Hill as Ney?

      Delete
    4. ...that gives the charge of the Cuirassiers at Waterloo a theme tune at least?

      Delete
  8. You could hear the hoof beats pound
    As they raced across the ground
    And the clatter of the breastplates
    As they took round after round
    And he galloped into Mont Sainte Jean
    In just an old string vest
    His name was Ney
    And he led the finest cavalry in the west

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marshal Ernie Ney ...aye he's underrated in most wargames rules ;)

      Delete
    2. And gave us the best Christmas number one ever. Merry Christmas! 🥛🎄

      Delete
    3. Haaa! Indeed"Ernieeee!" Merry Christmas to you too sir.

      Delete